Right to Counsel can be Revived After Verdict

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
State v. Pitts (HSC January 22, 2014)
Background. Joseph Pitts was charged with attempted murder for allegedly stabbing his close friend. After going through three court-appointed attorneys, trial began. Just after opening statements, Pitts told the trial court that he wanted to represent himself. His lawyer said that Pitts believed “he knows the case better than [his lawyer] and that the truth will set him free.” The trial court ordered Pitts to consider it over the weekend. When trial resumed on Monday, Pitts said that he will put his stubbornness aside and keep his lawyer for trial. In the middle of the prosecution’s case, Pitts said he wanted to fire his lawyer. The circuit court gave him a day to think about his decision and then had a colloquy about the waiver of his counsel. The trial court then kept his lawyer as a standby counsel and Pitts represented himself. Trial resumed and this time Pitts said he wanted his lawyer back. His lawyer said that there may be a conflict at this point since he shared with the prosecution. The trial court denied the request on the grounds that there may be an ethical problem and “the bottom line is . . . [Pitts] waived [his] right to counsel.” Pitts was found guilty.

A week later, his lawyer withdrew as standby counsel and asked for a substitute counsel. His lawyer also moved for a mistrial. The lawyer explained that Pitts has asked for his help in requesting a new trial, sentencing, and an appeal. The prosecution objected to the motion. The trial court denied the motion and said from the bench that his lawyer may not have standing to file the motion requesting the appointment of counsel in the first place. Pitts filed five post-verdict motions on his own seeking to set aside the verdict, a new trial, appointment of counsel for sentencing and appeal, psychiatric evaluation, and a continuance. Pitts repeatedly asked for a lawyer at the hearing. All motions were denied except for the appointment of appellate counsel. He was sentenced. Pitts appealed and the ICA affirmed.

Right to Counsel Extends After the Verdict. “The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee to a person to be represented by counsel at every critical stage of the prosecution.” Reponte v. State, 57 Haw. 354, 361, 556 P.2d 577, 582 (1976). Art. I, Sec. 14 of the Hawaii Constitution also guarantees the accused the right to counsel. A stage is “critical” when the “potential substantial prejudice to defendant’s rights inheres.” State v. Masaniai, 63 Haw. 354, 359, 628 P.2d 1018, 1022 (1981). There is also a right to represent one’s self when the defendant “voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. There can be some tension in these two principles.” Marshall v. Rodgers, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1446, 1449 (2013).

The HSC held that the post-trial motion stage is a critical stage of the prosecution in which the right to counsel attaches despite a defendant’s mid-trial waiver of his or her right to counsel at trial. Here, the trial court insisted that Pitts represent himself despite his repeated requests for a lawyer. The HSC noted that the right to represent one’s self is not irreversible and can be terminated. In sum, the HSC held that “in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a defendant who has exercised the right to self-representation at trial, but expressly requests counsel for post-verdict motions or for sentencing has a right to counsel.” And Pitts’ firing of four court-appointed lawyers is not an extraordinary circumstance (as many court-appointed lawyers can attest). The HSC vacated the judgment and remanded for re-sentencing and filing a motion for new trial.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judge accidentally strikes the entire expert opinion in a murder trial

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Sylva (HSC December 29, 2023) Background. Kumulipo Sylva was indicted for murder in the second degree after he was arrested for killing Eduardo Cerezo in the bathroom of the Queen Kaahumanu Shopping Center. Sylva raised the insanity defense and three examiners were appointed to determine penal responsibility. All three concluded that Sylva suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. Two out of the three believed he lacked capacity under the insanity defense was not criminally responsible.   At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Cerezo and Kyle Keoho got on the bus in Pukalani when they saw Sylva on the bus. Cerezo called Sylva a “pussy” and threatened to beat him up. When the bus got to the shopping center, the three of them got off and Sylva challenged Cerezo to a fight. Cerezo said he did not want to fight and Sylva walked away from them.   Cerezo and Keoho went to the bathroom together. Sylva also went into the bath...
Read more

If you're going to set bail, it has to be reasonable and can't be excessive so $3.3 million won't work

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Carter (ICA March 6, 2024) Background. Samuel Carter was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree and firearms offenses. He was held in jail without bail. About four months later, Carter filed a motion for supervised release or, in the alternative, a motion to set bail. Carter argued that there had been no findings supporting the decision to hold him without bail. The prosecution opposed and attached a letter to the Circuit Court noting that there had been no bail report because of the no-bail determination. According to the pretrial services intake center, it would not assess Carter’s eligibility for supervised release unless and until the court sets bail first.   At the hearing on the motion, Carter asked that bail be set at $100,000. The prosecution objected and argued that there was a rebuttable presumption of detention, Carter posed a danger to the community, and there was a flight risk. The prosecution did maintain that even though he could be...
Read more

HSC doesn’t wait for Rule 40 to find defense counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress

By Benjamin Lowenthal -
  State v. Yuen (HSC August 20, 2024) Background. Charles Tung Ming Yuen was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The charge arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred approximately fifty feet from the O’Malley Gate just outside of the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu. Two vehicles were approaching the gate when one of the vehicle rear-ended the one in front of it. Military police came onto the scene and identified Yuen as the driver of the vehicle that cause the collision. They seized him and subjected him to standardized field sobriety tests. Then they held him and called the Honolulu Police Department to report a “possible DUI outside the gate.”   The collision, seizure of Yuen, and their investigation occurred outside of the base within the City and County of Honolulu. The police showed up and took over. They conducted their investigation, saw signs of intoxication, and arrested Yuen.   Yuen’s lawyer, Barry Sooalo, di...
Read more